Nu stiu unde sa postez articolul asta, dar o fac aici, amuzata de paradoxurile ciocnirilor ideologice, pentru ca “ofensatii” sunt de data asta guvernul francez, Sarkozy, feministele, si alte organizatii de drepturi civile din Franta, intr-un caz care mie mi se pare clar: femeia musulmana a intrat in contractul de mariaj prin minciuna. Contractele trebuie respectate, daca intri in ele liber si neconstrins, oricit de idioate sunt valorile pe care se bazeaza. Femeia a consimtit la anulare, dar statul francez e “ofensat” de decizia judecatorului din Lille:

From The Times May 31, 2008

Outrage as French judge annuls Muslim marriage over bride’s virginity lie Charles Bremner in Paris
The annulment of a young Muslim couple’s marriage because the bride was not a virgin has caused anger in France, prompting President Sarkozy’s party to call for a change in the law.

The decision by a court in Lille was condemned by the Government, media, feminists and civil rights organisations after it was reported in a legal journal on Thursday. Patrick Devedjian, leader of the ruling Union for a Popular Movement, said it was unacceptable that the law could be used for religious reasons to repudiate a bride. It must be modified “to put an end to this extremely disturbing situation”, he said.

The case, which had previously gone unreported, involved an engineer in his 30s, named as Mr X, who married Ms Y, a student nurse in her 20s, in 2006. The wedding night party was still under way at the family’s home in Roubaix when the groom came down from the bedroom complaining that his bride was not a virgin. He could not display the blood-stained sheet that is traditionally exhibited as proof of the bride’s “purity”.

Mr X went to court the following morning and was granted a annulment on the grounds that his bride had deceived him on “one of the essential elements” of the marriage. In disgrace with both families, she acknowledged that she had led her groom to believe that she was a virgin when she had already had sexual intercourse. She did not oppose the annulment.

Critics ran out of superlatives to condemn what they depicted as a dangerous aberration. Valérie Létard, Minister for Women’s Rights, said that she was “shocked to see that today in France the civil law can be used to diminish the status of women”.

Elisabeth Badinter, a philosopher and pioneer of women’s legal rights, said that she felt shame for the French justice system. “The sexuality of women in France is a private and free matter,” she said. “The annulment will just serve to send young Muslim girls running to hospitals to have their hymens restored.”

Although officially discouraged, the 30-minute operation is in increasing demand from Muslim women who fear the consequences of being unable to prove their virginity on their wedding night. Numerous agencies offer services for surgery trips to north African nations. One is offering a “hymenoplasty trip” to Tunis for €1,250 (£980). Internet sites and blogs are full of would-be brides in fear of the test of “the blood-soaked sheet”.

While ministers fulminated against the Lille decision, a different stand was taken by Rachida Dati, the Justice Minister, who has Moroccan and Tunisian parents. The law had, she said, protected the bride. “Annulling a marriage is a way of protecting the person who perhaps wants to undo a marriage. I think this young girl wanted . . . to separate quite quickly. The law is there to protect vulnerable people,” Ms Dati said.

The annulment was defended by Xavier Labbée, the lawyer who acted for Ms Y. The decision was justified by the bride’s deception, not her sexual history, he argued. “Quite simply it is about a lie,” he said. “Religion did not motivate the decision . . . but it is true that religious convictions played a role.”

Requests for annulments have risen sharply to nearly 2,000 a year in France, but experts could recall no case involving non-virginity. ”

Ce zic patrupezii? Sper sa avem o discutie interesanta. (Pe mine ma fascineaza teoria contractelor…. Glumesc. Banuiti de ce ma intriga povestea.)

@Panseluta: In UE (nu bag mana in foc si pentru americani) e o problema cu “dreptul” de a fi angajat, in sensul ca patronul nu are dreptul sa te respinga pentru religie, sex, rasa and all the usual PC stuff.

Sarah Desrosiers ar fi trebuit sa ii dea un motiv generic pentru neangajare (neintegrare in colectiv de exemplu).
Faptul ca a fost corecta si i-a spus motivul exact pentru care nu vrea sa o angajeze se traduce (din pacate) intr-un proces, aproape, castigat de Noah.

“In plus, nu ti se pare ca ai dreptul, ca proprietar de business, sa-ti alegi angajatii dupa criteriile tale, chiar daca sunt “discriminatoare” sau bazate pe o prejudecata?”

Nu am cum sa fiu de acord cu un astfel de drept, neacordarea unui drept deplin de discriminare imi garanteaza si mie (cel putin teoretic) sanse egale pentru obtinerea unui loc de munca.
Totusi, daca respectivul nu vrea sa ma angajeze doar pentru ca, de exemplu, sunt roman sau ortodox (ca sa ramanem la tema discriminarii religioase ) solutia diplomata ar fi sa-mi spuna ca nu sunt ceea ce cauta (aka BS me ). In felul asta el isi pastreaza convingerile si eu imi vad linistit de treburile mele.

Singurele discriminari cu care sunt de acord sunt cele bazate strict pe competenta profesionala a individului sau pe factori care ar putea sa-i afecteze capacitatea de a-si efectua slujba.

In cazul de fata religia este un astfel de factor, islamul se afla in situatie de incompatibilitate cu locul de munca, dar nu este o discriminare bazata pe ura sau prejudecati: stilul abordat la locul de munca este opus crezului religios, in mod evident nu te poti astepta la rezultate optime intr-o astfel de situatie.

Cum am spus si mai sus, e evident ca situatia a fost creata in mod voit de Noah. Potentialul angajat, ar trebui sa-si faca temele si sa isi alega un loc de munca care sa i se potriveasca, dar vad ca a ales sa respecte dictonul cu Mahomed si muntele, ea fiind in rolul muntelui .

Sper ca in final, tribunalul sa ii dea castig de cauza lui Sarah, desi ma indoiesc ca se va intampla asta avand in vedere influenta pe care o au organizatiile musulmane in UK.

“Pana la urma trebuie sa iei in considerare si varianta ca B. Noah a mintit in legatura cu numarul refuzurilor, tocmai pentru a putea face acuzatia de discriminare mai credibila.”

E posibil si asta, dar ma indoiesc. Cind vrei sa te pui intr-o lumina cit mai favorabila, incerci sa reduci numarul de esecuri la interviurile de angajare, nu sa il cresti. Adica sa minti in minus, nu in plus.

Pana la urma trebuie sa iei in considerare si varianta ca B. Noah a mintit in legatura cu numarul refuzurilor, tocmai pentru a putea face acuzatia de discriminare mai credibila.

Ideea era ca, in contextul articolului, aluziile la talentul lui Noah in domeniul coafatului induc o senzatie de dispret (ceva de genul: “cum ba? nici nu stie sa tunda si mai face si figuri?” ) care nu cred ca era necesara.

Sint de acord, este posibil ca din 25 de patroni, citiva (mai multi sau mai putini) sa fi gindit in sinea lor “nu am nevoie de cineva cu basma” sau poate chiar “nu vreau sa angajez un musulman”. Statistic insa, este foarte improbabil ca toti sa fi gindit la fel. De aceea mi se pare mai probabil (cel putin pentru citiva angajatori) ca decizia de a nu-i oferi slujba s-a bazat pe aptitudinile ei profesionale. Mai e ceva. Am trait in Londra intre 90-95 si am avut citeva slujbe acolo. Primele au fost munci de jos si stiu cum e sa iti cauti de lucru acolo si cum sint oamenii. Era si este un oras foarte cosmopolit si oamenii sint obisnuiti cu particularitatile celor din jur. Functioneaza principiul de fairness, iar in relatiile profesionale (cum e cazul cu B. Noah) sint directi si corecti. De aceea tind sa cred ca, de fapt, majoritatea celor care au intervievat-o nu si-au pus problema basmalei, au vazut ca fata nu se pricepe suficient la coafura, i-au spus “thanks, but sorry” si cu asta basta. Nu cred ca cineva s-ar fi jenat sa o intrebe daca e dispusa sa lucreze fara basma, daca ar fi apreciat ca asa ceva ar fi in detrimentul businessului. Si mai e ceva. De obicei, la astfel de munci, patronul cu indoieli zice “uite, iti dau doua saptamini de proba si mai vorbim”. Una din doua. Fie B. Noah nu a primit nici macar o astfel de oferta, fie a primit si l-a convins pe patron ca nu e cazul sa nu ii extinda contractul. In ambele cazuri, nepriceperea profesionala e un factor mult mai important decit basmaua sau alte accesorii.

This is totally out of order. She knows the way the real world works – does she honestly expect employment in a trendy place looking the way she does – this woman knows exacly what she is doing. She is being vindicitive and damaging and she should be sued herself for causing unnecessary distress. I am so sick of people crying foul about anything they don’t get their own way.

Ar putea sa fie o idee pentru Bushra Noah (vai, ce nume!) sa se transfere in Saudi Arabia si sa faca hairdressing cat doreste. De ce vrea sa fericeasca poporul din Swinging London cu bunele sale intentii?